Dokploy MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. For a permission assignment tool with 15 required parameters, the description should explain what happens when permissions are assigned (e.g., whether they replace existing permissions, merge with them, require specific user roles to invoke, or have validation rules). The description provides only parameter listings without behavioral insight.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably concise - just a header and parameter list. However, it's poorly structured as it leads with a redundant restatement of the name and HTTP method rather than the tool's purpose. The parameter list is clear but lacks organization (e.g., grouping related permissions). It's brief but not effectively structured for understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex permission management tool with 15 required parameters, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, when to use it, what the parameters mean, what the tool returns, or any behavioral expectations. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly given the minimal information provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage and 15 parameters, the description merely lists parameter names without explaining their meaning. While it shows which parameters are arrays vs booleans, it doesn't explain what 'accessedProjects' contains (project IDs? names?), what the boolean flags control, or how the arrays interact with the boolean permissions. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description restates the tool name as '[user] user.assignPermissions (POST)' without explaining what 'assignPermissions' means. It lists parameters but doesn't state the tool's purpose - whether it assigns permissions to a user, modifies existing permissions, or creates new permission sets. The name suggests it's about user permissions, but the description doesn't clarify the action or resource beyond what's already in the name/title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There are no usage guidelines provided. The description doesn't indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites exist, or what context it's appropriate for. With many sibling tools in the system, there's no guidance on when this specific permission assignment tool should be selected over other user or permission management tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.